Adi Shankara and Aquinas

[Anonymous No.17576920]

How can Adi Shankara's metaphysics be reconciled with Thomism? When I read Aquinas' ways, I find them relevant, and when I read Adi Shankara, the same. I really have the impression that both have been able to pierce a part of Being from two different points of view: Aquinas via the object, Adi Shankara via the subject. But how can we reconcile the two metaphysics more broadly, without cherry-picking the arguments we like? After all, the whole Thomistic metaphysics rests on an enormous Aristotelian system (substance, accident, prime matter, form, etc.) from which one cannot remove a part without breaking the coherence of the whole, and which leads to confusing conclusions (for example that there is actually no H2O in a glass of water - see the work of Feser). The same goes for Adi Shankara's metaphysics, which is based on a large number of assumptions, as an Astika philosophy and can also leads to confusing conclusions - there is only one consciousness, the world is illusory. How can the two be reconciled? I have the impression that there is a whole metaphysics to be built. By "translating" Adi Shankara's wisdom about consciousness into a Thomist system describing the universe, its objects and motors, in order to have a complete metaphysics of the All. By uniting the metaphysics of object and subject, in order to have a complete picture. By understanding how Thomistic arguments are to be understood in a Vedantic/perennialist framework - is the first motor describing Isvhara, Brahman, something else? By reconciling apparent contradictions - the Thomistic ipsum esse being personal and volitionary, for example. And by comparing celestial ontologies: angels and devas - aeviternity... Finally, by reconciling the ontologies of the two systems. How to explain the illusion of the world by taking into account materia prima and form? Etc. How to reconcile the incessant production of Brahman with the temporality of Thomistic creation - the world having a finite beginning, God being atemporal. How Brahman could create without will (being impersonal) and without internal causes (non-duality). How can Brahman be amoral when the Thomistic God is Goodness? How can we understand the ontology of morals and of persons? In short, there is a whole field of perennialist study to combine the best of both worlds.

Don't get me wrong: I'm not trying to reconcile the two systems simply because I like them, but because I find that both have very good, valid arguments for all the points I've just been talking about, and that there is therefore a real need for reconciliation and unification in a greater theory.

[Anonymous No.17577032]

[Anonymous No.17577990]

How's first mover not a god of the gaps?

[Anonymous No.17578091]

It can't. Either the Bible is right or the Vedas/Upanishads (or, rather, the parts that Shankara arbitrarily accepts as valid) are. You can't have two competing religions that root themselves in divine revelation of mutually exclusive texts.

[Anonymous No.17578126]

>>17577990
Because of how causation works. Read Aristotle.

[Anonymous No.17578203]

>>17578126
Aristotle's Prime Movers are fundamentally different from Aquinas' conception of God.

>>17577990
In Aquinas, it absolutely is. In Aristotle, they're constantly pumping causality into the uncreated polytheistic universe. They're always in the background of literally everything, so they never "fill in" a gap, you can just jump past a gap and say "okay they're involved in some manner". So, one could say they're Gods of the Gaps, but again, because they're involved in everything ever at all times the gap isn't so much "we don't know what causes this therefor JESUS" but more "we don't know what causes this but it like everything involves ZEUS".

[Anonymous No.17578963]

>>17578203
Guy didn't ask about Aquinas or God. He asked about "first movers." He should still read Aristotle.

[Anonymous No.17579105]

>tfw you've been calling Shankara a cosmic indo-thomist as a slur and now /lit/ thomzooms are seriously investigating this

[Anonymous No.17579399]

>>17577990
Aquinas' arguments does not deal with empirical things. A God of the Gaps presupposes that we don't have scientific knowledge of something, therefore God. However, we do have knowledge of how change/motion works in the world. Aquinas' argument from motion is a philosophical argument not a scientific one.

[Anonymous No.17579437]

>>17578963
>aquinas thread
He has no idea what the distinction between Aristotle and Aquinas and their thoughts on the divine are. Someone will eventually come in posting about how Aquinas LITERALLY PROVED GOD and posting old cripchan memecharts. Is there a distinction here? Yes. It will be completely ignored.

>>17579105
Based shitstirrer.

[Anonymous No.17579594]

>>17576920
I have only read brief selections from Aquinas's writing and so most of my knowledge about his thought is gleaned from other sources, although I have still reached the same opinion as you OP. There are many interesting connections to be made between the two theologies. The book "Christianity and the Doctrine of Non-Dualism" by 'A Monk of the West' attempts to bridge Thomism and Advaita as compatible from what I understand although I have not read it, I would like to read it before long. I just woke up and saw this thread, after I have some breakfast and tea I intend to share my thoughts on some of the points and questions that you raise.

[Anonymous No.17579631]

>>17578203
>In Aquinas, it absolutely is.
filtered hard.

[Anonymous No.17579659]

>>17579631
Yeah, you did get filtered pretty hard. Kinda sad. There's no shame in midwittery though. At least you're hap-

Oh. Sorry.

[Anonymous No.17579693]

>>17578203
>o, one could say they're Gods of the Gaps, but again, because they're involved in everything ever at all times the gap isn't so much "we don't know what causes this therefor JESUS" but more "we don't know what causes this but it like everything involves ZEUS".

wtf are you even saying anon

[Anonymous No.17579747]

>>17579399
>However, we do have knowledge of how change/motion works in the world.
We only knownof those because of empirical evidence. And there is no guarantee that all of reality works in the same way.

[Anonymous No.17579763]

>>17579693
He's sayibg that in a purely Aristotelean world view, absolutely everything in the eternal universe is constantly caused by God.

[Anonymous No.17579790]

>>17579747
But ultimately, Aquinas' arguments deal with things that are immaterial.

[Anonymous No.17579848]

>>17579693
The God of the Gaps is a rhetorical device to attack theism by arguing that God only exists to fill in gaps about what we do not know. For example, one might say
>God was responsible for rain until we figured out how rain works

This doesn't really apply to Aristotle's Prime Movers (49-55 special entities that are made of special stuff up in the sky, these are the Gods) as they're constantly pumping causality into the world. So, while Ares causes war, he also causes rain, and literally everything else in some small capacity. All of them do. All causality "starts" with them. Ares (again, for example) never does anything as opposed to doing something else, he just has varying degrees of impact on things (once a causal chain starts things other than the Gods can impact it). So it's not really proper to say that Aristotle's Gods are "Gods of the Gaps" because they aren't doing something as opposed to doing something else. We can know how rain works perfectly and Ares will still be involved in it because Ares is involved in everything.

Under Aquinas' system, however, as God is transcendent and the Prime Movers are just angels he put in place, God CAN do things AND not do certain things. That is to say, God can lift something, but not every act of lifting involves God. Except when it does. A big point in Aquinas is crafting a system whereby he can have his cake and eat it too (Aristotle does this too) as on the one hand he has to have God be a hands-off transcendent creator infinitely far away from man that only really exists as a cosmic background for other things to exist, but he ALSO wants this transcendent infinitely distant creator to be nearby, listening to your every word, tut-tutting at you for jerking off, impregnating virgins, and punishing cities for having one too many Pride Parades. This means that he HAS to allow for a God of the Gaps.

[Anonymous No.17579868]

>>17579763
Ok... but this is the same for Aquinas. What do you think subsistent existence itself means? Also I'm pretty sure it's the opposite. I think Aristotle said the unmoved mover merely was the first cause, not the subsistent cause for all "secondary or intermediary causes" thereafter. Pic very much related

[Anonymous No.17579906]

>>17579848
There is a single prime mover. Aristotle ends his writing on them by saying there can only be one ruler, and it is far more elegant than 46 or whatever seemingly random number he chooses

[Anonymous No.17579929]

>>17579848
>the Prime Movers are just angels he put in place
Where does Aquinas say this. He clearly says that God is the cause for all being in the world.

[Anonymous No.17580002]

>>17579906
Read The Metaphysics. Aristotle is pretty clear about the uncreated polytheistic nature of the universe. He ends Metaphysics 12 pondering about the fact that there has to be multiple Gods (due to the simple empirically observed facts of Greek Astronomy), but that there's only one heaven. He ends up writing De Caelo where he rectifies this, demonstrating how there can be one heaven but multiple Gods filling it. There's 49-55 Gods as he leaves the precise numbers to astronomers, as they are the ones who determine how many Celestial Spheres there are (there's one God for each sphere, and astronomers of the day were divided).

Later (Neo-)Platonic writers would try to rectify this with their own philosophy, as Aristotle crafts the idea of a "Prime Mover", but its Primeness is because it starts a causal chain, not because it starts literally everything ever (this would be impossible, Aristotle's conception of the Gods, the Prime Movers, requires them to be uncreated, they can never have been set in motion, similar to the universe as a whole, which because it is made up of special stuff cannot have ever been created as uncreatedness, alongside moving in circles, is one of the properties of the element that makes it up). Under the (Neo-)Platonic cosmology, the world absolutely is created, so there has to be just one Prime Mover. But again, this is diverging from Aristotle.

>>17579929
De potentia Dei 3.19 ad 3.He also allows for the possibility that the spheres are moved by multiple angels rather than just one, it's a moot point as far as he's concerned.

[Anonymous No.17580156]

>>17580002
Even so, Aquinas still claims that God is the cause for all contingent things. Everything depends on God for its existence. If Aquinas says angels move the heavens, he still admits that God is ultimately the cause of this existence and sustains their being since God is the creator of movement. Aristotle however, has the other unmoved or prime movers subordinated to the first unmoved mover, but the movement of say the heavens, does not depend on the first unmoved mover. Aquinas says they do.

>"Since, then, many things come to exstence in consequence of the movements of the heavens, and since God has been shown to be the first mover in the order of movements, it follows that God is the cause of the existence of all these things." (Summa Contra Gentiles II, 6)

>"But the efficient cause produces the being of its effects. God, therefore is the cause of the being of all other things."

[Anonymous No.17580296]

>>17580156
>Aristotle however, has the other unmoved or prime movers subordinated to the first unmoved mover, but the movement of say the heavens, does not depend on the first unmoved mover
They don't move on accord of other movers, they move on account of being made of the fifth element, Quintessence. All things made of this element are eternal and move in circles, never slowing down, stopping, experiencing friction, etc.

[Anonymous No.17580301]

The Prime Mover argument doesn't work because there could just as well be an infinite regress. Aquinas D E S T R O Y E D

[Anonymous No.17580380]

>>17578203
>Aristotle's Prime Movers are fundamentally different from Aquinas' conception of God.
Please explain.

[Anonymous No.17580389]

>>17580301
>The Prime Mover argument doesn't work because there could just as well be an infinite regress.
No. Not with a causal serie ordered essentially.

[Anonymous No.17580492]

>aquinas' arguments
>implying aquinas ever came up with anything

[Anonymous No.17580497]

>>17580389
The essential causal series could be on top of a "successive" (I don't know the right jargon) one. So the plate is sustained by the table, and the table is sustained by the earth, but the earth is not sustained by anything, here we have astral bodies moving each other in their orbits. But Aquinas didn't know that because astronomists back then thought the earth wasn't moving at all.

[Anonymous No.17580554]

>>17580497
>the earth is not sustained by anything

>gravity? Curvature of space? What is that lol

[Anonymous No.17580570]

>Guenonfag still has not posted

WTF, is he sick?

[Anonymous No.17580577]

>>17580570
Maybe he finally got in the Atmangelion

[Anonymous No.17580633]

>>17580554
lmao so you don't even understand what an essentially causal series is? Why are you trying to defend Aquinas if you don't know the argument.

[Anonymous No.17580635]

>>17580497
if the universe didnt exist that would be plausable anon, aquinas distinguishes existence and essence but says they are of the same being, and as existence is derivative in temporal beings their existence must come from a prime existent being. astronomy has nothing to do with it, motion is change and ofc they thought the earth was in motion, the how and why of motion has nothing to do with science

[Anonymous No.17580645]

>>17580635
Wrong, that's Feser's argument, not Aquinas'.

[Anonymous No.17580675]

>>17580635
this

[Anonymous No.17580879]

>>17580645
the argument from essence/existence? no, it's from aquinas, in the De Ente

[Anonymous No.17580918]

>>17580633
wtf?

[Anonymous No.17580933]

>it's another episode of a christian finding out his heroes have been refuted but instead of forsaking christcuckery he wants to rehabilitate them
You Christians have an unhealthy obsession with Christianity.

[Anonymous No.17581034]

>>17580645
ive never read feser and i know this is aquinas's argument

[Anonymous No.17581524]

bump

[Anonymous No.17581569]

>>17580879
We are talking about the argument from motion, which doesn't say anything about essence/existence and is refuted by the fact that all hierarchically ordered series bottom out in "succesive" ones, which Aquinas agrees can be infinite.

[Anonymous No.17581633]

>>17581569
> and is refuted by the fact that all hierarchically ordered series bottom out in "succesive" ones
Do you plan to demonstrate your slogans someday, or are we waiting for nothing?

Thats is just wrong. The termination of an essentially ordered causal series can only be a first engine, pure act, and all that follows, therefore not another engine of an accidentally ordered causal series.

[Anonymous No.17581704]

>>17580933
That's academic theology as a whole. Realistically speaking, Christianity is still absolutely in power, it's just taken on an incredibly bizarre form under Social Justice. It's telling that Aquinas' modern academic relevance is in post-colonial theory brown studies and other such garbage where things like the Great Chain of Being are used to justify anti-White violence.

[Anonymous No.17581713]

>>17581704
>where things like the Great Chain of Being are used to justify anti-White violence.
what
how

[Anonymous No.17581755]

>>17581713
There's a Great Chain of Being.

And you're at the bottom.

>b-b-but-
Universal Morality is a double-edged sword, anon. You didn't seriously think Euros could run around knocking over civilizations in the name of International Finance and unifying the world as one miscegenated Globo Homo, but-with-Jesus, and it wouldn't be turned around on us, right?

[Anonymous No.17581777]

>>17581633
>Thats is just wrong. The termination of an essentially ordered causal series can only be a first engine, pure act, and all that follows, therefore not another engine of an accidentally ordered causal series.
Sure it can. All essentially causal series we know of bottom out in an accidentally ordered series. So the plate is sustained by the table, and the table is sustained by the earth, but simultaneous causation ends there. The earth being moved due to gravity is an accidentally ordered series.

[Anonymous No.17581796]

>>17581755
>unifying the world as one miscegenated Globo Homo, but-with-Jesus,
Aquinas' natural law is distinguished between the ends, the objects, and the circumstances. If the intention was to globohomify the world, it would be immoral even if it seemed that they were using Jesus. But to use Jesus as a ploy to globohomify the world would be to act contrary to the eternal law and Jesus/God and universal morality itself.

[Anonymous No.17581824]

>>17581755
>There's a Great Chain of Being.
>And you're at the bottom.
how the fuck do u justify anti-white violence with this
and we're not at the bottom of the chain - animals, minerals, plants, etc

>Universal Morality is a double-edged sword, anon. You didn't seriously think Euros could run around knocking over civilizations in the name of International Finance and unifying the world as one miscegenated Globo Homo, but-with-Jesus, and it wouldn't be turned around on us, right?
The Church of Christ, the faithful depository of the teaching of Divine Wisdom, cannot and does not think of deprecating or disdaining the particular characteristics which each people, with jealous and intelligible pride, cherishes and retains as a precious heritage. Her aim is a supernatural union in all-embracing love, deeply felt and practiced, and not the unity which is exclusively external and superficial and by that very fact weak.
- Summi Pontificatus

>Sure it can. All essentially causal series we know of bottom out in an accidentally ordered series.
I am waiting for the arguments. I can't wait for you to explain to me how the termination of an essential series, which is necessarily pure act, is in fact another act/power hybrid motor of an accidental series.

>So the plate is sustained by the table, and the table is sustained by the earth, but simultaneous causation ends there. The earth being moved due to gravity is an accidentally ordered series.
False: Simultaneity is not the primary criterion for determining whether or not a series is essential. A locomotive is an example of an essential series and yet there is a delay between the head end and the cars. Go back to study.

>So, it is ultimately their instrumental character, and not their simultaneity, which makes every member of a per se ordered causal series other than the first depend necessarily on the first. To be sure, the paradigm cases of causal series ordered per se involve simultaneity, because the simultaneity of the causes in these examples helps us to see their instrumental character. And the Thomist does hold that the world must ultimately be sustained at every instant by a purely actual uncaused cause, not merely generated at some point in the past. For these reasons, Thomists tend to emphasize simultaneity in their explanations of causal series ordered per se, as I did in The Last Superstition. But it is arguably possible at least in theory for there to be a per se causal series in which some of the members were not simultaneous.
https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/08/edwards-on-infinite-causal-series.html

[Anonymous No.17581917]

me see religion man me post seethe comment in thread

[Anonymous No.17582422]

>>17578091
There are parts of the Vedas and Upanishads which can easily be read as in accordance with perennialism, as well as in the Gita and Puranas. Whatever Christians may think of it, it's not hard at all for a devout and orthodox Hindu to view one or certain other religions as being founded by incarnations of Vishnu as Buddha or Jesus or whoever and some of them do believe this.

[Anonymous No.17582700]

>>17581917
wat

[Anonymous No.17582750]

>>17577990
its the opposite isnt it? explicit statement of no gaps

[Anonymous No.17583008]

>>17576920
>how can we reconcile the two metaphysics more broadly, without cherry-picking the arguments we like?
The book "Theology after Vedanta" by Francis X. Clooney, S.J. is very good and explores some of these questions. He is scheduled to be the president of the Catholic Theological Society of America during 2022-23.
>After all, the whole Thomistic metaphysics rests on an enormous Aristotelian system (substance, accident, prime matter, form, etc.) from which one cannot remove a part without breaking the coherence of the whole, and which leads to confusing conclusions (for example that there is actually no H2O in a glass of water - see the work of Feser). The same goes for Adi Shankara's metaphysics, which is based on a large number of assumptions, as an Astika philosophy and can also leads to confusing conclusions - there is only one consciousness, the world is illusory. How can the two be reconciled?
The majority of the assumptions between the two metaphysics are shared in my opinion, both reject the notion that an infinite regress of contingent things can account for the existence of the universe and instead hold that there must be an uncreated transcendent non-composite source who is outside or anterior to time. Shankara refers in certain works to Brahman in a Thomist-like manner as pure existence or pure being, although he also says like Proclus and Pseudo-Dionysus that Brahman is beyond being and non-being or beyond existence and non-existence, it seems his ultimate position is the latter and not the former; often times this difference in description is because his commentary is just following what the Upanishad he is commenting on says, as the primary Upanishads themselves switch between describing Brahman in these two manners. These two may amount to being descriptions of the same thing from different angles, as nothing which has a contingent existence ultimately possesses pure existence or pure being, the only place it is found is in the transcendental source who is anterior to normal mundane being or existence as found in the world and non-being, on which they are both contingent. That Shankara's works are meant to be understood hermeneutically would support this, as if he felt that these two positions were ultimately contradictory he would have likely explained why in his works but I don't recall him doing this.

[Anonymous No.17583021]

>>17583008
There is also the point that for the Advaitist, "normal existence" is just the transcendental reality or truth that is beyond being and non-being appearing as otherwise, and that once the false projection of the two categories on it end the underlying reality containing them would simply reveal itself, the self-revealing of awareness in the timeless moment being nothing more than this self-revealing reality disclosing itself as it always does but with layers added on top of it by the jiva's conceptions. If the pure existence of God is non-dual and transcendental to normal thought and dualistic thinking and if our normal discourse inevitably relies on the mundane conception of existence we acquire through dualistic experience, does the term 'pure existence' itself then become an oxymoron? So long as we stay recognizant of the limits of language, I think that there is essential value to describing the ineffable or the Absolute in positive terms.

A little harder to reconcile would be that Shankara and Advaita seem to maintain some level of energy-essence distinction in that they hold maya is intrinsically different from and subordinate to Brahman, and the energy-essence of Eastern Orthodoxy has been a point of disagreement with Catholicism, some Catholics had said that it's actually not opposed to Catholic doctrine.

>"Catholic philosopher and blogger Dr. Michael Liccione argues that the Essence-Energies Distinction, as expounded by St. Gregory Palamas, is true and is compatible with the Catholic dogma of absolute divine simplicity according to the definition given at the Fourth Council of the Lateran and the First Vatican Council. Dr. Liccione says that Divine simplicity and the distinction between the Divine Essence and the Divine Energies would be contradictory if Divine Essence is taken "to mean God as what He eternally is" because "God is actus purus, and thus has no unrealized potentialities." However, if we define God's essence as what "He necessarily is apart from what He does," then God's "essence is incommunicable" and communication would necessitate Divine actions, or Energies. Thus there is a real distinction between God's Essence, what "He necessarily is apart from what He does," and His Energies, "God as what He eternally does"
https://religion.wikia.org/wiki/Essence-Energies_distinction#Catholic_perspectives

Similarly in Advaita, Brahman as He exist alone in absolute reality in a non-dual manner without maya would be God's essence as "He necessarily is apart from what He does", and the it being Brahman's eternal uncaused nature to perpetually manifest the maya as the lower contingent existence for the jivas out of His omnipotence would be "God as what He eternally does"

[Anonymous No.17583031]

>>17583021
>I have the impression that there is a whole metaphysics to be built.
Yes, there are certainly volumes which could be written on this subject. Perhaps someday it will be done, there exist a few small blog or small book sized attempts already. JF Staal already wrote a multi-hundred page comparison of the metaphysics of Plotinus and Shankara and there is Clooney's book and some others.

>By understanding how Thomistic arguments are to be understood in a Vedantic/perennialist framework - is the first motor describing Isvhara, Brahman, something else?
To the extent that any first mover in Thomism or in Aristotle's thought would be contingent or conditioned in any way it would be the Saguna Brahman who manifests the universe at the beginning of each cycle of universal manifestation. Shankara in his writings often uses the word Isvara in its literal sense as 'Lord' to refer to Nirguna Brahman, he sometimes uses Isvara and Paramisvara interchangeably, just like he does with Atman and Paramatman. In situations where he is not referring to the Supreme Brahman he will sometimes use a different word, or it will be clear from the context because the Isvara he is describing wont resemble the Nirguna Brahman. To the extent which a first mover is unconsidered unconditioned and anterior to or outside causality as the ultimate ground on which causality is predicated, but without directly partaking in or being conditioned by causality itself, then that would correspond to the Supreme Brahman.

[Anonymous No.17583071]

>>17583031
>By reconciling apparent contradictions - the Thomistic ipsum esse being personal and volitionary, for example.
Advaita considers Brahman to be personal, a personal entity who is non- or supra-individual, an infinite person who is beyond all the specific particularities and determinations that manifest themselves as thought and sense experience. Insofar as personal means a sentient, self-knowing entity, Brahman is personal. In Advaita volitionary as normally understood cannot be admitted as being completely real at the ultimate level, because it would involve changes that would make Brahman no longer immutable, Brahman in some texts is said to have pure desires that He is not bound by to create, but this is a more a figurative or symbolic way of referring to Brahman's uncreated inherent nature of always "creating" in a beginningless through His power (Shankara does this in his Taittirya Upanishad bhasya and in his bhasya on the Mandukya Karika), metaphorically it is an eternal pure desire which is always fulfilled without it conditioning the desirer, although at the higher level it's maintained true nevertheless that as infinite and non-dual consciousness that transcends knower and known Brahman does not have any lack of fulfillment of anything that would impel It to action, and so Brahman does not have desires and volition as we normally understand them and that Brahman having "desires" refers to Him having the uncreated nature to always wield His power and for it to always be manifested as the expression of that. Guenon makes the point in his book on Vedanta that the West understands "individual" to what in the East is "personal" and by "personal" what in the East is "individual", I don't know if this is always true but it seems to be so with Advaita Vedanta.

[Anonymous No.17583081]

>>17583071
>How to explain the illusion of the world by taking into account materia prima and form?
Materia prima is accepted in Advaita in the form of mula-prakriti or primordial root-matter which the same as maya. Beginningless primordial root matter is accepted (which manifests as the universe and unmanifests back into Brahman again before a new cycle) because it is just maya which is beginningless because maya is an image of the real and has been around as long as the source of the image, so both are beginningless although one is ontologically contingent on the other and only subsists through it temporarily and in an indeterminate manner as its appearance. For Advaita, the world is unreal because it lacks the eternal and immutable nature of Brahman that is the absolute reality, which Advaita says is the only 'real' that can be described as such without qualifications. That which exists at a certain point in time but not before or after never did truly exist in the absolute reality that is Brahman or God, but only at a lower level according to Advaita. It's interesting to note in accordance with this that according to Feser's interpretation of Aquinas and Aristotle, they were both presentists who held that only the present moment exists and not the past or future. To this Advaita would agree and say that on the level of absolute reality there is only the eternal and timeless now and the determinations viz things and situations which emerge as the before and after don't really exist in absolute reality while the existence of 'now' does.

https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2019/04/aristotelians-ought-to-be-presentists.html

[Anonymous No.17583109]

>>17583081
>Etc. How to reconcile the incessant production of Brahman with the temporality of Thomistic creation - the world having a finite beginning, God being atemporal.
Brahman is similarly atemporal in Advaita, the act of wielding maya is atemporal and has always been going on, but the position of the world having a finite beginning isn't completely at odds with Hindu doctrine since each cycle of universal manifestation is finite from the perspective of the beings within that cycle. It's not the same universe being recreated over and over but different determinations each time of the primordial root-matter
>How Brahman could create without will (being impersonal) and without internal causes (non-duality).
Advaita says that to eternally wield maya is Brahman's very uncreated eternal nature, it simply always is and has been the case and so it never needed to be initiated by a conscious act of will because there was never a transition from inactive to active that required it, similarly breathing just occurs as the living bodies inherent nature to constantly do so at all times and normally not as an act of will. Aristotle held that the prime mover always was and is continually engaging in self-contemplation, which is not so different from the idea of the non-dual consciousness of Brahman always being self-revealing to itself as self-knowing non-dual Awareness and in that sense engaged in self-contemplation, with the manifesting of maya being contingent upon this fact and flowing from it as it were.
>How can Brahman be amoral when the Thomistic God is Goodness?
That's a good question, they both can't be true on the ultimate level unless non-duality is itself an ultimate transcendental goodness thats different from the normal duality of good and evil/bad

[Anonymous No.17583339]

>>17583008
Thanks for your very interesting answers.

>The book "Theology after Vedanta" by Francis X. Clooney, S.J. is very good and explores some of these questions. He is scheduled to be the president of the Catholic Theological Society of America during 2022-23.
Seems very interesting. I am curious to read what he says from a soteriological point of view. We have already discussed it a little bit, but I am convinced that one cannot take seriously the mystical experiences, which appear in all religious paths, and at the same time maintain a strict exclusivism of salvation (of the kind: damned outside my visible church). Although with recent work in neurology on special states of consciousness, and on psychedelics, I am less and less confident in the transcendent reality of mystical states. Now, if the ontological pyramid is inverted, with at its base, far from the top, the world and its objects, the objective, and at the top, the sentient God, the ultimate subject, perhaps it is not illogical that by ontologically "rising" one falls more and more on subjective things that seem to lack objectivity: hence the subjective differences between mystical states, astral journeys, special dreams, particular visions, etc., which are not always the same.

>pure existence or pure being(...)beyond being and non-being
Maybe one is saguna and the other is nirguna?

>the jiva's conceptions
Btw, how to explain NDEs if nothing of the jivatman survives death?

> energy-essence distinction
I found this: https://www.amazon.com/Ground-Union-Deification-Aquinas-Palamas/dp/0195124367

>"God as what He eternally does"
I think you have finally made me understand how non-dual Brahman can have maya with your comparison with energy/essence.

>Advaita considers Brahman to be personal
I always read the opposite?

[Anonymous No.17583350]

>an infinite person who is beyond all the specific particularities and determinations that manifest themselves as thought and sense experience
And yet since it is infinite in the metaphysical sense, that is, the universal possibility of which Guénon speaks, it is "at the same time" beyond all determination and containing them all, therefore it is at the same time existing and non-existing, infinite and finite, unlimited and limited, and so on.

> Insofar as personal means a sentient, self-knowing entity, Brahman is personal.
How can the Brahman be sentient since he perceives nothing? All consciousness presupposes a duality, between what sees and what is seen, as we have already discussed. But since Brahman does not see the world, and since he is the only one who exists at his level, he is blind.

>https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2019/04/aristotelians-ought-to-be-presentists.html
Why this link?

>It's not the same universe being recreated over and over but different determinations each time of the primordial root-matter
Except that if God is atemporel he creates all worlds "at the same time". In Thomism, God created all at once. Except that in Hinduism, there is this idea of cycles: of universes recreated one after the other, which necessarily implies a form of temporality in the creator.

>That's a good question, they both can't be true on the ultimate level unless non-duality is itself an ultimate transcendental goodness thats different from the normal duality of good and evil/bad
To be verified, but it is possible that there is not even a contradiction here, because it seems to me that when Aquinas says of God that he is necessarily Good, he speaks less of moral goodness than of perfection: this is why evil is seen as a lack, rather than as a positive reality.

[Anonymous No.17583373]

>>17583350
>To be verified, but it is possible that there is not even a contradiction here, because it seems to me that when Aquinas says of God that he is necessarily Good, he speaks less of moral goodness than of perfection: this is why evil is seen as a lack, rather than as a positive reality.

>I answer that, God alone is good essentially. For everything is called good according to its perfection. Now perfection of a thing is threefold: first, according to the constitution of its own being; secondly, in respect of any accidents being added as necessary for its perfect operation; thirdly, perfection consists in the attaining to something else as the end. Thus, for instance, the first perfection of fire consists in its existence, which it has through its own substantial form; its secondary perfection consists in heat, lightness and dryness, and the like; its third perfection is to rest in its own place. This triple perfection belongs to no creature by its own essence; it belongs to God only, in Whom alone essence is existence; in Whom there are no accidents; since whatever belongs to others accidentally belongs to Him essentially; as, to be powerful, wise and the like, as appears from what is stated above (I:3:6); and He is not directed to anything else as to an end, but is Himself the last end of all things. Hence it is manifest that God alone has every kind of perfection by His own essence; therefore He Himself alone is good essentially.
https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1006.htm

+

good links to the Thomistic vision of morality here, and how, from this vision of good and evil, one can come to conclusions on specific issues: marriage, sexuality, etc : https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2015/06/love-and-sex-roundup.html

[Anonymous No.17583421]

>>17583339
>We have already discussed it a little bit, but I am convinced that one cannot take seriously the mystical experiences, which appear in all religious paths, and at the same time maintain a strict exclusivism of salvation (of the kind: damned outside my visible church)

Pic related.
I'd like to have your opinion on this.

[Anonymous No.17583436]

>>17578091
The metaphysics of Aquinas aren't canon.

[Anonymous No.17583443]

>>17579763
Aquinas also believes this.

[Anonymous No.17583519]

>>17583443
I tried to tell them this anon. They wouldn't listen

[Anonymous No.17583531]

This thread is depressing me. I've been reading about Aquinas for the past month and I think i can finally engage in a decent discussion about him. I get the basic idea of his 5 ways, hylemorphism, motion, etc. But here this thread is, containing jargon and terms I still havent heard about. Will I ever make it bros?

[Anonymous No.17583553]

>>17583519
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/creation-conservation/
I'm still pretty new to the philosophy of religion but this is one of the first concepts I learned while studying it. I thought it would be common knowledge

[Anonymous No.17583615]

>>17583531
The Christian Philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas, Etienne Gilson

book should help you

[Anonymous No.17583638]

>>17583615
I'm 2/3rds done with it right now. I just ordered Gilson's "Spirit of Medieval Philosophy" and "Philosophy and God"

[Anonymous No.17583641]

>>17583531
read and listen to Feser.

[Anonymous No.17583839]

>>17583615
>>17583638
I love this dude

[Anonymous No.17583864]

>>17583081
For you, what is Holiness? Doesn't that include doing good and being compassionate? I love Michelstaedter's point of view on this subject, which he exposes in Persuasion and Rhetoric. I think that his position can be totally compatible with the vedanta: radically cutting himself off from the world and from all contigencies, to be satisfied only with the Self, with the unconditioned. He delivers a magnificent analysis of dukkha, dukkha which is for me the greatest wisdom of the Buddha: the understanding, full and complete, realized, that from the world, from the phenomena and contingencies, can only come from suffering and dissatisfaction.

The verse 4.4.14 of the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad states:

While we are still here, we have come to know it [ātman].
If you've not known it, great is your destruction.
Those who have known it – they become immortal.
As for the rest – only suffering [duḥkham] awaits them.

[Anonymous No.17583874]

>>17583839
Garrigou-Lagrange master race

[Anonymous No.17583884]

>>17583839
>>17583638
>>17583615
you lads read coplestons volume on medieval philosophy in his history of philosophy? another good one

[Anonymous No.17583894]

>>17583864
>can only come from suffering and dissatisfaction.
can only come suffering and dissatisfaction.*

[Anonymous No.17584045]

>>17583884
I'll add that to my list. My backlog just keeps growing

[Anonymous No.17584069]

>>17584045
just read Feser

[Anonymous No.17584092]

>>17584069
I already read that. I'll get his Scholastic Metaphysics and Aristotle's Revenge eventually

[Anonymous No.17584094]

>>17578091
Nah, bro. Nah.

[Anonymous No.17584125]

It sounds like you're putting too much stock on discursive reasoning. It can only take you so far, you know?

[Anonymous No.17584302]

>>17584094
based

[Anonymous No.17584542]

>>17584094
Remember that thread, was a good one

[Anonymous No.17584776]

>>17584094
imagine really believing this bs

[Anonymous No.17584811]

>>17583071
>>17576920
Guénon has already made a good start in synthesizing the two systems. Read his Multiple States of Being and his Reign of Quantity.

[Anonymous No.17584917]

>>17584776
> imagine being some blinkered physicalist

[Anonymous No.17584952]

>>17580002
are you sure that you understand what he means by "angels"? Properly speaking, they are more complex than invisible people with wings. For example, The idea of a principality being the collective sum of a city, town, or nation etc. I think all angels in Christian theology proper are this.

[Anonymous No.17585622]

>>17579105
Zooms don’t read Aquinas

[Anonymous No.17585663]

>>17584094

[Anonymous No.17586104]

>>17583008
>Reign of Quantity
hs but what is the hindu/vedanta position on homosexuality and transgenderism?

[Anonymous No.17586575]

>>17584952
>For example, The idea of a principality being the collective sum of a city, town, or nation etc.
sounds like egregore to me

[Anonymous No.17586601]

>>17583839
Wow he looks like that

[Anonymous No.17586741]

>>17583531
Copleston's History of Medieval Philosophy is good

[Anonymous No.17586844]

how can one be hindu or religious at our era? do u guys don't know science and physicalism, and the arguments for it? neurology?

[Anonymous No.17586876]

>>17586844
https://youtu.be/NVOi8cvEl5Y

[Anonymous No.17587551]

>>17586876
Based

[Anonymous No.17588130]

Bump

[Anonymous No.17588617]

good thread for once on here

[Anonymous No.17588619]

>>17588617
ty

[Anonymous No.17589070]

>>17586844
science was refuted by Guenon (pbuh)

[Anonymous No.17589096]

>>17585663
based

[Anonymous No.17589300]

>>17586741
do I need to read the rest of the series or can I read it on its own?

[Anonymous No.17589430]

>>17589300
you can read it on its own, although reading all 11 volumes will leave you with a better understanding of philosophy than most people here.

[Anonymous No.17590129]

How do Thomists respond to Kant? If the entire Thomist system is dependent on real motion but our perception of motion is only phenomenal, then how can we reach many of the conclusions Thomists do, such as the nature and existencr of God? I guess all challenges to direct realism are direct challeneges to Thomism

[Anonymous No.17590266]

>>17579105
Aquinas's unwavering dualism shits on Shankara's non-dualism though. This whole 'reconciliation and unification' is doomed to fail. What vedantafags want is to cherry pick parts of Thomism in order to add an arsenal of arguments in favor of Brahman, that's it. They basically seek to loot from Christians and pose it as their own, just like they did with Buddhism centuries ago when they looted its ideas. When will perennialists understand that not everything is a synergy. Ultimately this thread won't go anywhere, in fact its just being bumped by the same person. This is my last post.

[Anonymous No.17590312]

>>17584094
>their antagonism towards China and Russia is motivated by their fear of Eurasia eventually becoming a global refuge from the usurers
lmao this whole drivel just to simp for steppe niggers and insectoids (who are unironically the most materialist peoples after Indians). No wonder Russoids buy traditionalism hook line and sinker...

[Anonymous No.17590492]

Both of you kneel

[Anonymous No.17590518]

>>17590129
why even acknowledge Kant?

[Anonymous No.17590529]

>>17590266
>When will perennialists understand that not everything is a synergy
this is not a perennialist position

[Anonymous No.17590615]

>>17590266
Oh it's not about the non/dualism. It's about trying to shove someone else's metaphysics into your revelatory religion to keep it from falling apart when people question the dogma, since there are no explanations for dogma because it comes from a historical period of despotic priestly rule.

[Anonymous No.17590627]

>>17590518
There's a great bit from Schopenhauer about how theologians just ignore Kant and rename their arguments for God as if nothing ever happened. It's somewhere in WWR.

[Anonymous No.17590982]

>>17590129
>>17590627
Thomists have long since answered Kant. If you read French, this book (pic. rel.) contains a fairly complete refutation of his philosophy.

In english, there is some criticisms of Kantian epistemology and metaphysics in "The Last Superstition" (Edward Feser), and of Kantian objections to cosmological arguments for God’s existence in "Aquinas" (Edward Feser).

James Chastek helpfully spells out some further, more general objections Thomists have to Kant’s epistemology and metaphysics. Go take a look: https://thomism.wordpress.com/?s=kant

Chastek recommends Oliva Blanchette’s "Philosophy of Being" as further reading.
Another place to look for a detailed Scholastic take on Kant is Coffey’s Epistemology, which addresses the subject at length both in Volume 1 ( https://archive.org/details/epistemologyort00coffgoog ) and in Volume 2 ( https://archive.org/details/epistemologyort00unkngoog ).

[Anonymous No.17591756]

bump

[Anonymous No.17592856]

>>17590982
based

[Anonymous No.17592941]

bump

[Anonymous No.17593057]

>>17579848
lurk more

[Anonymous No.17593794]

>>17576920
Reconcile Ramanuja and Aquinas instead.

[Anonymous No.17593881]

>>17583339
>explain NDEs if nothing of the jivatman survives death?
The subtle body of the jiva transmigrates from body to body, it doesn't die. The unique tendencies, memories, beliefs etc which characterized that jiva in that life don't continue on except sometimes as minor traces influences which when they occur are not nearly enough to constitute a complete reincarnation of one being's mind and habits etc into another body.
>I always read the opposite?
The point is that Advaita would disagree that impersonal and personhood correspond to Nirguna and Saguna, and to them even Nirguna Brahman is still considered as being a person in the sense of being an aware and self-knowing entity, not as an impersonal force like gravity. Some scholars describe them as impersonal, but in actual Advaita texts and their translations they don't say that Brahman is impersonal. The Upanishads describe Brahman as a sentient and omnipotent entity who is infinite, formless, soundless, tasteless, odourless etc pure awareness. This in particular is just something that I think is simply a matter of different world-views. The pure person of consciousness for Advaita is prior to the delimitations in the form of individualities that are imposed onto it, or viewed through it.
>>17583350
>How can the Brahman be sentient since he perceives nothing?
Because non-dual awareness or consciousness is self-revealing, it has the continuous revelation and experience of itself as self-knowing. This is not the normal experience of subject-object, but a perfect unity or unicity of awareness which illuminates and registers its own eternal and infinite presence in an effortless and unbroken manner without dividing itself into subject and object or knower and known. It is because the basis of awareness underlying all mental phenomena is non-dual and self-illumining that it doesn't need to perceive anything else to intuitively know itself. If there was never some ultimate end or background to all mental phenomena that knew itself without needing another thing to know itself, then in trying to trace how we are aware of things, one thing would always need to be witnessed by another mental phenomena and so on ad infinitum which creates the problem of how can we ever be aware of anything if knowing anything involves an infinite regress.
>All consciousness presupposes a duality, between what sees and what is seen ... But since Brahman does not see the world, and since he is the only one who exists at his level, he is blind.
The intellect and its subject-object distinctions presuppose duality, but Advaita insists that consciousness is non-dual and different from the intellect, due to a lack of discrimination the subject-object distinctions of the intellect obscure the underlying non-duality of the consciousness that illumines the intellect from within. Brahman's Awareness always knows Himself, and as He is the only thing that exists in absolute reality this is tantamount to omniscience.

[Anonymous No.17593921]

>>17593881
>The point is that Advaita would disagree that impersonal and personhood correspond to Nirguna and Saguna, and to them even Nirguna Brahman is still considered as being a person in the sense of being an aware and self-knowing entity, not as an impersonal force like gravity. Some scholars describe them as impersonal, but in actual Advaita texts and their translations they don't say that Brahman is impersonal.

dishonest damage control...if Nirguna Brahman isn't impersonal then advaita is fucking pointless

just read Ramanuja instead

[Anonymous No.17594038]

>>17593921
>In place of the terms 'Self' and' ego', we may also use those of 'personality' and' individuality', with one reservation however for the 'Self', as we shall explain later on, may denote something over and above the personality. The Theosophists, who seem to have taken a delight in confusing their terminology, interpret the personality and the individuality in a sense which is the exact opposite of that in which they should rightly be understood; it is the first which they identify with the 'ego', and the second with the 'Self.' Previously, on the contrary, even in the West, whenever any distinction has been made between these two terms, the personality has always been regarded as superior to the individuality, and that is why we say that this is their normal relationship, which there is every reason to retain. Scholastic philosophy, in particular, has not overlooked this distinction, but it does not seem to have grasped its full metaphysical significance, nor to have extracted the most profound consequences which follow from it; this is moreover what often occurs, even on occasions where Scholasticism shows the most remarkable similarity with certain portions of the Eastern doctrines. In any case, the personality, metaphysically speaking, has nothing in common with what modern philosophers so often call the 'human person', which is, in fact, nothing but the individuality pure and simple; besides, it is this alone and not the personality which can strictly be called human. In a general was it appears that Westerners, even when they attempt to carry their views further than those of the majority, mistake for the personality what is actually but the superior part of the individuality, or a simple extension of it: in these circumstances everything of the purely metaphysical order necessarily remains outside their comprehension.

[Anonymous No.17594166]

>>17590266
t. seething crypto-nihilist

[Anonymous No.17594442]

>>17594038
my point exactly

completely vapid paragraph saying nothing whatsoever except that everyone else is retarded...Nirguna Brahman is the Buddhist void but the advaitins just called it The Absolute or The Self (TM)...critics are entirely right to say that Nirguna Brahman is devoid of personality, Guenon affirms this if you're going to debate honestly

[Anonymous No.17594495]

>>17594442
>Nirguna Brahman is the Buddhist void
The Buddhist void is not eternal self-knowing awareness

[Anonymous No.17594663]

>>17594038
>Should the supreme, total and universal Principle, which the religious doctrines of the West call "God", be conceived as impersonal or personal? This question can give rise to interminable discussions, and moreover without object, because it proceeds only from partial and incomplete conceptions, which it would be vain to try to reconcile without rising above the special domain, theological or philosophical, which is properly theirs. From the metaphysical point of view, it must be said that this Principle is both impersonal and personal, depending on the aspect under which it is considered: impersonal or, if you like, "supra-personal" in itself; personal in relation to the universal manifestation, but, of course, without this "divine personality" presenting the slightest anthropomorphic character, because one must be careful not to confuse "personality" and "individuality". The fundamental distinction that we have just formulated, and by which the apparent contradictions of the secondary and multiple points of view are resolved in the unity of a superior synthesis, is expressed by Far Eastern metaphysics as the distinction between "Non-Being" and "Being"; it is no less clear in Hindu doctrine, as is the essential identity of pure metaphysics.
in the diversity of the forms it can take. The impersonal Principle, therefore absolutely universal, is designated as Brahma; the "divine personality" which is a determination or a specification of it, implying a lesser degree of universality, has as its most general appellation that of Îshwara. Brahma, in his Infinity, cannot be characterized by any positive attribution, which is expressed by saying that he is nirguna or "beyond all qualification", and again nirvishesha or "beyond all distinction"; on the other hand, Îshwara is said to be saguna or "qualified", and savishêsha or "directly conceived" because he can receive such attributions, which are obtained by an analogical transposition into the universal, of the various qualities or properties of the beings of which he is the principle.

>Introduction to the Study of the Hindu doctrines, VII. Shivaism and Vishnuism

[Anonymous No.17594701]

>>17594038
Personality being a determination, it concerns ishvara. Brahman, the metaphysical infinity, which is the universal possibility, is a-determined.

>The subtle body of the jiva transmigrates from body to body, it doesn't die. The unique tendencies, memories, beliefs etc which characterized that jiva in that life don't continue on except sometimes as minor traces influences which when they occur are not nearly enough to constitute a complete reincarnation of one being's mind and habits etc into another body
Not consistent with the testimonies. People who live NDEs report being totally themselves and say they remember their life, they are not shells. But it is true that in cases of reincarnation (cf. the works of Ian Stevenson) the traces of the previous "me" are more subtle. Moreover, Judaism has a beautiful explanation of this (Gilgulei Ha Neshamot), which seems to join the vedanta because it also speaks of psychic "traces", of shells, not to the transmigration of complete souls.

[Anonymous No.17594732]

>>17594701
>Personality being a determination, it concerns ishvara. Brahman, the metaphysical infinity, which is the universal possibility, is a-determined.

>This being said, if we define Being, in the universal sense, as the principle of manifestation, and at the same time as including, by this very fact, the set of all the possibilities of manifestation, we must say that Being is not infinite, since it does not coincide with the total Possibility; all the more so since Being, as the principle of manifestation, does indeed include all the possibilities of manifestation, but only in so far as they manifest themselves. Therefore, outside of the Being, there is everything else, that is, all the possibilities of non-manifestation, with the possibilities of manifestation themselves as they are in the non-manifested state; and the Being himself is included in it, because, not being able to belong to the manifestation, since he is the principle of it, he is himself non-manifested. To designate what is thus outside and beyond the Being, we are obliged, for want of any other term, to call it the Non-Being; and this negative expression, which, for us, is in no way synonymous with "nothingness" as it seems to be in the language of certain philosophers, besides being directly inspired by the terminology of the Far Eastern metaphysical doctrine, is sufficiently justified by the necessity of using any denomination to be able to speak about it, attached to the remark, already made by us above, that the most universal ideas, being the most indeterminate, can only be expressed, insofar as they are expressible, by terms which are indeed in negative form, as we have seen with regard to the Infinite. We can also say that the Non-Being, in the sense that we have just indicated, is more than the Being, or, if we want, that it is superior to the Being, if we mean that what it understands is beyond the extension of the Being, and that it contains in principle the Being itself. However, as soon as we oppose the Non-Being to the Being, or even simply distinguish between them, it is because neither of them is infinite, since, from this point of view, they limit each other in some way; infinity only belongs to the whole of Being and Non-Being, since this whole is identical to the Universal Possibility. We can still express things in this way: the Universal Possibility necessarily contains the totality of possibilities, and we can say that the Being and the Non-Being are its two aspects: the Being, in so far as it manifests the possibilities (or more exactly some of them); the Non-Being, in so far as it does not manifest them. The Being therefore contains all the manifested; the Non-Being contains all the unmanifested, including the Being itself; but the Universal Possibility includes both the Being and the Non-Being.

René Guénon, The Multiple States of Being, chap.III: Being and Non-Being

[Anonymous No.17594756]

>>17583350
>>17583373
>>17583421
Bump

[Anonymous No.17595189]

bump

[Anonymous No.17595249]

>>17594701
>Brahman, the metaphysical infinity, which is the universal possibility, is a-determined.
According to Advaita these concepts and categories dont exist as absolutely real in absolute reality but are creations of the intellect which is subject to maya, the ultimate reality of Brahman transcends speech and don't exist on one side or other of a false duality created by the intellect of 'personality vs individuality' or 'personal vs impersonal', 'open vs closed' etc, but referring to Brahman under one of these two false binaries can have pedagogical value. For example, even though Brahman is beyond, anterior to existence and non-existence which as two concepts in the intellect are creations of Brahman's maya, the Upanishads still say that Brahman is seated in, existing in or dwells in the hearts of all beings, because that is part of the symbolism that helps one understand the identity of Brahman and one's innermost witnessing-consciousness or Atman. To me, Guenon's point that the infinite can have a higher metaphysical 'personality' that is to the 'Self' as the 'individuality' is to the 'ego', which is different from the normal western conception of personality, is something that makes sense to me and is worth taking into consideration, because when I read Shankara's works the non-duality he is writing about is not the bleak, void-like impersonal dissolution that some detractors make it out to be, nor is he espousing some sort of devotion towards a entity with a personality that is qualified by distinct attributes, he does neither of these and what he is talking about exists in its own unique category and has its own distinct feel to it so if you just say it's completely impersonal you are not really doing it justice.

>Not consistent with the testimonies. People who live NDEs report being totally themselves and say they remember their life, they are not shells.
People who have NDE's return though, I cannot remember from my reading where exactly the majority of the tendencies and memories etc in the subtle body are erased during the process of transmigration, although what you say could just imply that anyone who had an NDE and returned to speak about it just didn't proceed far along enough for that erasure to happen.

[Anonymous No.17595284]

>>17595249
>>17583350 (You)
>>17583373 (You)
>>17583421 (You)

Bump

[Anonymous No.17595612]

>>17586104
actually interested
maybe it's permitted like in ancient greece
homophoby come mainly from the leviticus of the old testament and saint paul

[Anonymous No.17595877]

another translation of the shankara commentary than the archive one: https://www.shankaracharya.org/gita_bhashya.php

[Anonymous No.17595896]

>>17586104
Let's just say Vishnu has taken the form of a woman before

[Anonymous No.17595906]

what do u guys think of chinmayananda? is he legit? and of Dayananda Saraswati (Arsha Vidya)? please dont tell me about the shankacharyas, i want your opinion on these 2 gurus, thanks

[Anonymous No.17595915]

Guenon believed in the traditional healing power of the Amrita-Sacrament (that is a pretty normal Upanishadic belief).
>It is precisely because Amrita has a quality so divine that it is proper to subject oneself to all that it entails and therefore also to its arduous preparation, and to put it on the table before food, so that it may be not found lacking in quality. This, of course, is perfectly in harmony with the doctrines of almost all traditional schools. Thus it is urged that the divine nectar be milked and consumed as a Sacrament by the initiated. Without dwelling on the matter any longer, we will only note that while mating, a European male can (at best) be expected to produce far less of the nectar than a Negroid male of comparable stature, and that this difference in aptitude will certainly be passed on through the generations.

[Anonymous No.17595982]

>>16111745
>>14513170
>>11054714

Just a reminder that Shankarafags shit on Aquinas and Christians on the daily, but then try to 'collab' (ie steal our ideas) to boost their own arguments for a false god. They really are snakes of Satan, crawling through and pretending to be people of integrity before they backstab you like jews. Destined for hell are these lost souls, may God help them.

[Anonymous No.17596015]

>>17595915
cringe, don't talk about ur blacked fantaisies here

[Anonymous No.17596032]

>>17595982
>Shankarafags shit on Aquinas and Christians on the daily
no

[Anonymous No.17596033]

>>17596015
direct quote from guenon, cope more

>The young and the inexperienced will no doubt be misled and confused by some of the materials invoked in the preparation and some of the details concerning the milking and will be led astray to ruin, but we nevertheless advise to initiate them into the transubstantiatic "lesser circle" as soon as may be reasonably possible. If a full consumption of the Sacrament does not appear to be feasible, a simple anointing of the lips will suffice.

[Anonymous No.17596039]

>>17596032
yes, snake.

[Anonymous No.17596040]

>>17596033
please get help

[Anonymous No.17596051]

>>17596040
I don't need it when I'm already invigorated with His blessings. Read more Guenon (pbuh).

[Anonymous No.17596057]

>>17596039
>"Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves" (Matthew 10:16)

>And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up (John 3:14).

all the vedantins I've seen here regularly praised Aquinas, seethe harder.

[Anonymous No.17596065]

>>17596057
yes they praise him so much by calling him a paper tiger and obese chump. Tell me again who made that virgin aquinas pic?

[Anonymous No.17596071]

>>17596057
>all the vedantins
Did you not read those posts he linked? Clearly a bunch of them have hatred for us. Don't fall for their traps brethren, they are but idolators.

[Anonymous No.17596077]

>>17596065
>b-b-b-but i found this meme
one (1) meme against dozens of threads.

[Anonymous No.17596080]

>>17596071
>Did you not read those posts he linked?
all invalid links

[Anonymous No.17596129]

>>17596077
>p-please its just a meme bro they actually do like us
lmao utter cope, they are lying snakes.
>all invalid links
picrel

[Anonymous No.17596141]

>>17595982
Based man of God.

[Anonymous No.17596709]

>>17596129
U are really crying for this? Oog, baby...

[Anonymous No.17597150]

Bump

[Anonymous No.17597464]

Bump

[Anonymous No.17597697]

>>17595982
t. seething schizo who is not even Christian but who is pretending to get offended on their behalf because he has such a burning resentment towards Advaita that he will do anything to stir the pot of grief

>noooo you cant just reject nihilism and relativism and come together to discuss theologies, nooo, what about muh Kant and muh Wittgenstein and muh Buddhist sophistry, noooo

[Anonymous No.17597796]

>>17597697
>what about muh Kant and muh Wittgenstein and muh Buddhist sophistry
There is good in the three anon

[Anonymous No.17597955]

>>17586844
>how can one be hindu or religious at our era? do u guys don't know science and physicalism
yes and the rebutals are even more appealing. Did you know you claim there is a symmetry group living outside the universe and telling the matter how to behave. no you didn't.

[Anonymous No.17598295]

>>17586104
Hinduism in India is and has been a conservative and patriarchal institution generally, with some exceptions, so Hindus often feel distasteful about things like homosexuality. The scriptures which are considered revealed, i.e. the Sruti texts don't condemn any unequivocal condemnations of homosexuality as far as I'm aware, some of the portions of the Vedas imply that Mitra and Varuna had some sort of homosexual relationship. The condemnations of homosexuality and the treatment of it as a crime mainly occurs in legal texts like the Dharmasastras which are not revealed scriptures but canons of law which were assembled by men many centuries after the main scriptures already existed, this leads to an atmosphere where openly gay people are seen as distasteful, they are usually not persecuted in any major way though, at least in modern times. It's not like Islam where they cannot reveal themselves as religious gay men without a high chance of getting killed, in some sects it would probably be less frowned upon. The French scholar Alain Daniélou was a gay man who moved to India and joined a school of Shaivism, you might like his books if you are also gay and are interested in Hinduism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_themes_in_Hindu_mythology

Advaita Vedanta is a doctrine meant for monastics seeking union with God through liberation from the cycle of birth and death, which presupposes undertaking a vow of celibacy until death and uprooting all of one's lust and other desires forever. Actually being a monk and studying Advaita as a layperson are two different things though, I enjoy studying Advaita and other Hindu schools, and I largely agree with Advaita's metaphysics etc, and it has changed how I see the world and impacted me spiritually, but I am still a layperson who engages in pre-marital sex. You don't have to become a celibate monk to derive benefit from and enjoy studying Vedanta, and one can also be sexually active while in the pursuit of spiritual progress if one is just initiated into one of the Hindu schools for laypeople, which are not exclusively for monastics

>>17597796
Maybe so, but they seem to only ever get brought up in these sorts of threads as a series of canned responses by people who dislike metaphysics or religion. They already presuppose as wrong the things that they offer weak criticisms of, rarely do they say anything insightful that contributes to the discussion in a meaningful way, and only very rarely do they try to engage with the material that they are taking issue with in any serious manner.

>hey did you know that Kant criticized cosmological arguments? uhh... no I havn't read Aquinas or the arguments that Thomists provided in rebuttal to Kant... uh...
>You can't know nuffin! Where of which one cannot speak... that's why you should stop talking about this stuff and not take religion seriously and just read skeptics instead
>God? Brahman? Yikes! try process Deleuzian sunyata relativism instead

[Anonymous No.17598378]

>>17597955
>he believe in the symmetry theory
>he thinks more matter can refute physicalism
cringe

[Anonymous No.17598825]

>>17598295
>The French scholar Alain Daniélou was a gay man who moved to India and joined a school of Shaivism, you might like his books if you are also gay and are interested in Hinduism.
I know him, I'm French (and not gay), but from the feedback I've read I'm not sure he's weak.

I have a book by him on eschatology and signs of Kali Yuga that I have yet to read.

[Anonymous No.17598834]

>>17583864
bump

[Anonymous No.17598839]

>>17598825
>I'm not sure he's weak.
he's reliable*

[Anonymous No.17598853]

>>17598295
> Hindu schools for laypeople

Which are these?

[Anonymous No.17598962]

>>17598853
the bhakti and yoga ones, i imagine?

[Anonymous No.17599029]

>>17597697
cringe...

[Anonymous No.17599679]

>>17598825
In order to best understand a school of Hinduism its better to just read their scriptures and the works of their main philosophers or theologians anyway so you understand it in their own words instead of various modern thinkers who write books about that school, the latter are best just to acquaint you with some of the terminology and ideas first before diving into the real stuff.
>>17598853
There are multiple schools of Hinduism which have their own initiation which are offered to laypeople irrespective of any caste or ancestry requirements unlike the Hindu initiations/rituals derived from the Vedas that connected with caste. Examples of these include the samasrayana initation offered in various schools of Vaishnavism, and also the initiations of the various householder (i.e. layperson) Shaivite and Shaktist sects like Veerashaivism or Sri Vidya, they sometimes additionally have monks within their sects but the householder sects say that householders who follows their path under a teacher can attain enlightenment/liberation. Some Shaivites explain the situation by saying that Shiva is the author of both the Vedas and Agamas and that the Vedas present one set of caste-based initiations for the twice-born castes and the Agamas present another set for everyone. Generally initiation into these sects tend to have their own range of vows which accompany them, which can include things such as vegetarianism, abstinence from alcohol or tobacco, the wearing of an object or symbol, etc depending on the exact sub-sect.

[Anonymous No.17599697]

>>17599679
>householder (i.e. layperson)
actually, I realize that in this case these would no longer be synonymous since the householder would be initiated and hence no longer a layperson

[Anonymous No.17600767]

>>17577990

[Anonymous No.17600808]

>>17581917
Best comment just because I have no idea who you are making fun of, and I'm thoroughly confused.